The legal battle between Providus Bank Plc and Plural Oil Marketing Limited has intensified as the company and its directors have approached the Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking to vacate an ex-parte order that froze their bank accounts across multiple financial institutions.
Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos had granted an interim order freezing the Plural Oil Marketing Limited bank accounts and two of its directors over an alleged indebtedness of ₦3.17 billion and $835,486.76 owed to Providus Bank Limited.
Plural Oil Marketing Limited accuses Providus Bank over full disclosure
In a motion on notice filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the applicants, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu, are asking the court to vacate the order made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, describing it as oppressive, unconstitutional, and obtained in breach of their fundamental rights.
In a Motion on Notice filed by the defendants’ counsel, —Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu and Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu—the Applicants described the ex-parte order, granted on 7 October 2025, as unlawful, oppressive and obtained in violation of their constitutional right to fair hearing.
In their application, the Defendants/Applicants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the order because it was issued before they were served with any originating processes. They noted that even the order itself directed the plaintiff, Providus Bank, to effect substituted service—clear evidence that service had not yet been carried out at the time the accounts were frozen.
Plural Oil stated that it only became aware of the freezing directive on 9 October 2025 when various banks forwarded compliance notices from the Bank’s solicitors.
The company described the development as a “textbook breach” of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to be heard before adverse judicial steps are taken.
They also accused Providus Bank of failing to make the full and frank disclosure required when seeking ex-parte orders. In their affidavit, they outlined several material facts the Bank allegedly withheld, including: That Plural Oil had already paid ₦891,036,000 towards the disputed facility and that the company formally requested reconciliation and restructuring on the same day the Bank approached the court.
The company also argued that Providus Bank had earlier petitioned the EFCC, leading to the Managing Director’s seven-day detention in what they described as dehumanising conditions, despite the matter being civil in nature.
The further submitted that the delays in reconciliation were caused by the Bank’s failure to provide timely reconciliation schedules for over a year.
The Applicants argued that the omissions were deliberate and intended to create “a false sense of urgency and wrongdoing” to justify the sweeping ex-parte order.
Plural Oil further contended that the order extended far beyond permissible preservation measures by freezing all accounts linked to the BVNs of the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, including accounts in which they merely served as signatories and which belonged to third parties not connected to the dispute.
They described this as judicial overreach and a violation of Section 44 of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful deprivation of property.
The Applicants argued that the order effectively punished them before any trial had taken place and without evidence that the accounts contained proceeds of the disputed loan or were at risk of being dissipated.
Responding to reports suggesting that Plural Oil diverted Base Oil financed through Letters of Credit, the company vehemently denied the claim. It said the products were sold in the ordinary course of business and the proceeds remitted to the Bank.
The Applicants added that Providus Bank participated in reconciliation and restructuring exercises between 2021 and 2023, insisting that nothing about the transactions was hidden or fraudulent.
The company also criticised Providus Bank’s earlier petition to the EFCC, which led to the MD’s prolonged detention. They described the action as an abuse of process intended to intimidate the company and compel concessions outside civil banking procedures. The detention, they said, also disrupted medical treatment for serious cardiac and neurological conditions.
Emphasising on the alleged wrongful order, Plural Oil told the court that the continued freezing of its accounts has crippled its operations, halted legitimate business activities and caused “irreparable damage” to its financial health, employee obligations and contractual commitments.
They therefore urged the court to vacate the ex-parte order ex debito justitiae—as a matter of justice—and restore immediate access to all affected accounts.
Additionally, the Applicants seek a declaration that the order was obtained in breach of fair hearing, lacked jurisdiction, and should attract costs against Providus Bank for alleged misuse of ex-parte procedures.
The court has adjourned the case till December 22, 2025 for hearing of the Motion on Notice. Legal analysts say the forthcoming ruling will play a crucial role in determining the limits of ex-parte jurisdiction in commercial disputes of this nature.
